Susan Atkins will stay in prison

[jbane]

Looks like life means life Sadie. Big props to V. Bugliosi for the slam dunk in 69.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/14/manson.follower.ap/index.html

[Clovis Sangrail]

1. meh

she's got terminal brain cancer and has already had a leg amputated... I don't think she's a threat.

[Tulum_Moon]

2. Then it wont be much longer.

She did horrible things. She got life and got to live it.

[Jawja]

60. She actually got the death penalty

but it was commuted to life when the death penalty was outlawed.

She is lucky to have her LIFE, even if in prison. IMHO, her crimes were so heinous, she should die in prison.

[CatWoman]

6. It seems we two are in the minority

I agree with you.

[Midlodemocrat]

9. As do I.

I thought they should let her out to die with her family.

[CatWoman]

10. ah, Midlo

:hug:

:hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Right back atcha, sweetie.

:hug:

:hi:


Don't get the blood lust that comes from this. What she did was beyond awful, but letting her out would be the compassionate thing to do.

[girl gone mad]

38. "Blood lust" is a description which more aptly applies to her crimes.

I think people who want to see her serve her full term are simply seeking justice.

[samsingh]

96. why?

[SOS]

93. Three points on the OP

1. Atkins was released from prison in March. She is in a local hospital.
2. OP states "Atkins will stay in prison" while the linked CNN article says "Keep Manson follower in prison, DA urges".
3. She will never return to prison as she will die in the hospital. The only relevant point is whether she dies in the hospital or at home.

We've had plenty of threads on Atkins, but the whole thing is moot.
It's over.

[samsingh]

94. i agree with you completely. she should die without mercy for

what she did to the poor victims.

[lapislzi]

100. Why is it OK to withold mercy when you condemn that behavior in others?

It is a tremendous challenge to the person of conscience to extend compassion and mercy to all persons, especially those who do not "deserve" it.

But if we do not, we risk being caught up in a cycle of hate and revenge, which is something I want no part of. And no, do not ask me if I would feel differently were it my family member who was murdered by this person. Maybe I would. I would like to think that I would not. I would strive to find compassion for this person, undeserving as she might be.

It's not about her. She's either beyond redemption or she isn't (we'll never know). It's about you. It's about making you the better human being by taking the higher road.

[closeupready]

109. Given the nature of The Family in which she was involved,

where Manson didn't kill anyone (that we know of), but rather, gave orders to have people killed, and given that there are other similar instances of this known to us, for example, Omar Abdel-Rahman, the blind, wheelchair-bound sheik who allegedly masterminded the plans behind the first WTC attack in 1993, if she is conscious, and if the fact of her remorse is in question, she's a threat, period. She's a threat to the citizens of California and anywhere else, frankly. Endangering the lives and welfare of the citizens of California is extremely irresponsible.

That you characterize setting such an individual free from incarceration as "taking the higher road" is simply bizarre.

[lapislzi]

114. I'm not thinking about her. I'm thinking about me.

She is (or is not) beyond redemption. Showing mercy to her when she is near death in no way excuses her crimes, which were horrible. Precisely because she deserves no mercy is why she should be granted it. It ennobles us, the merciful. She is out of the equation.

Maybe that is a bizarre way of looking at it, but I would do it anyway. I would always, always, always try to err on the side of compassion and mercy. On the occasions when I have had the opportunity to be compassionate and I have not done so, I have been angry with myself.

As I stated upthread, it is extremely difficult to find compassion for a person who has committed such awful acts. But try we must. At least that's what I think, and I've got some good thinkers behind me who have said as much.

[closeupready]

116. I don't think it's bad to look at her and say to yourself,

"Gosh, look at what a miserable life she brought upon herself. I feel bad that someone who once was just an innocent baby somehow took a very wrong turn in life, and that it is necessary to continue to incarcerate her, despite her ailing health, because of the real threat she potentially poses to society, given the conspiratorial nature of the original murders, and the unresolved question of whether or not she is remorseful for her crimes. Hopefully, her victims and God somehow will have mercy on her in the afterlife."

I just don't think releasing a dangerous criminal into society ennobles anyone, or else why not release Charles Manson? He's 73 and probably not as healthy as he once was.

[lapislzi]

119. I disagree with your assessment that she is a threat to society

She is at present, dying. She will be dead very soon. Although I have not followed her condition and treatment, it does not sound to me as if she will be on the prowl for new victims. The motion to release her was simply to allow her to die at home with her family. She's not going to be at large.

As for Manson, if he were actively dying (i.e. close to death) and physically was unable to harm anyone, I might think the same thing--although drumming up any compassion for Manson is a pretty tall order. I don't know what the right answer is.

[closeupready]

123. Well, it's a moot point - she was denied parole, so

rather than hash this issue out endlessly (because I don't think we're going to come to an agreement), let's just accept the parole board's decision and let this go. Cheers - :hi:

[lapislzi]

125. Right you are.

Peace to you.
:hug:

[MilesColtrane]

136. What's keeping her family from visiting her bedside in the hospital?

Probably nothing.

I'm sure there are some security restrictions in the hospital she's in, but I doubt she's unable to have any visitors at all.

By having her death penalty commuted Atkins has already been the recipient of more compassion than she ever showed her victims.

[DangerDave921]

8. agreed -- not a threat

BUT: She should never be released from prison. Unless she's on hospice watch and will be dead in a day or two. Then I would relent and let her die someplace else. But at that point, who really cares if she's in prison or in a room somewhere else.

[JuniperLea]

12. I agree...

If for no other reason than the chance her situation will be a deterrent to other would-be murderers.

She showed no mercy to her victim. The victim's family lives with their loss every day... so should Sadie.

[DangerDave921]

13. compassion

I have no doubt she was duped by Charlie and that she was high on serious drugs at the time. And if she could go back in time, I have no doubt she'd do things differently. But man -- I just can't get over the horrific nature of the crime.

[JuniperLea]

15. I was pretty freaked out about it at the time...

I was just a kid. The images have stuck with me. They all laughed it up during the trials; absolutely chilling. Perhaps it will deter someone else from coming under the influence of freaks like Charlie Manson too. I think he had an unearthly control over these people, much like that of Jim Jones. It must be a sorrowful thing to be so empty that freaks like that can make you think you need to kill yourself or another. Creepy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. I don't feel for her. She got two prison marriages and occasional conjugal visits.

Kinda sounds like MY life.

Seriously though... Atkins told the grand jury that she held Tate down while Watson stabbed her. She also testified that Tate had pleaded for her life and that of her unborn child, to which Atkins replied, "Woman, I have no mercy for you."

No mercy for Atkins.

[closeupready]

20. I wouldn't let her out if she had five minutes left.

She got life, it was less than what she originally got (death), and that's what she should serve, period. There is no blood lust here. I do not want to see her tortured or mistreated.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. People are given life sentences as punishment, as well as to remove the treat to society

[samsingh]

95. what about justice for the victims? the horrible pain they endured.

Tate begged for the life of her unborn child (!) and this horrible lady laughed at her begging and stabbed her to death.

this cannot be forgiven.

[emilyg]

3. Good.

[slackmaster]

4. Kudos to Mr. Cooley for making the right decision for the community

:hi:

[michreject]

5. It's the best place for her

Maybe they'll withhold a few cc's of pain meds. She still has a lot to answer for.

[treestar]

49. At least you can be happy that she died in such a way that she

suffered a lot, more than her victims did, in terms of time knowing it is coming and physical pain. That's what people often complain about - the death penalty is carried out too mercifully, in their opinion. If she had died in the gas chamber, it would have been much faster. This way, you can be sure she suffered a great deal. Whether in prison at the very end or not, this would be so.

[cali]

135. bullshit. bullshit. bullshit.

There is no fucking way you can know that she suffered more. And length of time is hardly the sole measure of suffering. She's received care from professionals instead of being tormented and tortured. I have no particular opinion about whether she should have been released but to claim that she suffered more than her victims is arrogant bullshit.

[MyNameGoesHere]

75. dupe because i was so pissed at this comment

[MyNameGoesHere]

77. Nothing like a little torture huh?

I hear that this administration could use a wonderful person like you.

[michreject]

80. "Nothing like a little torture huh"

Ask her victim. I wonder if she was tortured. Ya think?

[MyNameGoesHere]

81. Yes she was.

And that makes it ok for you then I think you should find a "we support torture" forum to post your views in.

[michreject]

82. I would rather her be consious

when she takes her last breath. That's all.

[michreject]

84. I had to come back to this one

How is that torturing her? Torture is inflicting suffering on someone else. She(her body) is inflicting the pain on herself.

Letting her suffer is NOT torture.

[MyNameGoesHere]

87. Denying a little pain medication?

if they did that to you in a hospital you would sue. but since she is a convicted criminal it is ok? Where has America gone? To make someone suffer needlessly is torture. So let's hope you are never warden of a prison or Gitmo.

[ieoeja]

91. He also wants life-without-parole for robbers who are first offenders.

I know a few freeper types who are really out there. But none of them would even go that far.

[michreject]

127. Armed robbery

Stick a gun in someones face. Go to jail forever. End of story.

[michreject]

128. Why did you leave out "armed with a gun"?

Trying to evoke sympathy or didn't think that little fact was important?

[ieoeja]

129. Because it's kind of hard to rob someone if you're not armed?

Though a former coworker did witness such an attempt once. Nutcase walked up to people with his fist stretched out in front of him. Eventually some woman panicked, gave him her purse and ran to two cops watching the whole thing.

"No, ma'am, he did not rob you. You just handed him your purse," they replied.

They did retrieve the purse then haul the man off to a hospital for the night. But they had a lot of fun laughing at the woman because, technically, she was not robbed. The guy made no demands or overt threats. She just freaked out and gave him her purse.

[michreject]

131. Criminals rob people with knives also

Also they stick their hands in their pockets and threaten people under the pretense of having a gun. When someone actually sticks a gun in someones face, They deserve prison for life. No chance of parole.

[ieoeja]

140. Too fucking bad you happened to be born in the United States and not China then, huh?

Actually, the Chinese are eagerly recruiting American quislings willing to help them modernize technologically. If you have any such skills, you might consider emigrating. If nothing else, they are seeking teachers of English. Unlike the typical online neanderthal, you do write properly.

You would love their legal system. They like draconian laws too.

[tigersumtin]

105. Shes not just a convicted criminal

Shes a convicted serial murderer. not your local smash and grab criminal.

[MyNameGoesHere]

139. I think you mean mass murderer.

So in the "new world order" we can act like savages and and justify it with "she was a mass murderer?" Ok that is working real well for shrub so i suppose we can just roll with that. Please submit yourself for public floggin the next time you get a jay walking ticket. have a nice day.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

104. Do you think everybody here is an idiot? -nt

[michreject]

115. Nope

I'm here.

[lapislzi]

102. Your comment is cruel, pure and simple

Why would you say that? How would you feel if it was you? Your sister?

She will either answer for her actions in the next world (I do not believe this, but I know many do), or she won't. I don't know enough about the case to know whether she has demonstrated any remorse up to this point. It doesn't matter. You are called upon to show compassion for others, regardless of the circumstances. I'm no Christian, but I don't recall Jesus saying, "Love your neighbor except if he does something horrible and then it's OK to do something horrible back." You want to reach back into the Old Testament to pull out the revenge crap, go ahead, but I find it repugnant.

Why, oh why, would you choose to be cruel to another human being? What do you stand to gain by that? How does that make you--or anyone--feel better?

[cliffordu]

107. Hmmm....If you drive an automobile you have the blood of every soldier

and every civilian killed in Iraq on your hands.

Why would you choose to be cruel to another human being? What do you stand to gain by that? How does that make you--or anyone--feel better?

I mean besides getting to the mall faster.

Morality is not one from column "A" and two from column "B".

There is willful cruelty as in your example, cultural cruelty in mine.

What's the difference? The fact that you can ignore one??

[lapislzi]

108. Yes, I take your point, although I think it's RIA

I'm alive. I live. I'm not about to take myself out at this time, nor am I prepared to become a Jain. I am responsible for others, and so must provide for their needs as best I can. This regrettably but necessarily involves compromise at some level. It is unavoidable. The use of fossil fuels (to use your example) is several degrees removed from direct cruelty, however. I live in a world not of my own making and I am doing my best to get on with it, while creating as minimal an impact as I am able. I can choose not to perform certain actions--such as withholding pain medication from a dying person--but I do not choose to allow my family to starve. Therefore I drive a vehicle to a job where I do my utmost to ensure that the people I do business with don't use sweatshop labor (etc.) We are all of us just trying to get on with it. I didn't start the damn war. I did everything I could to stop it. So I think you have a hell of a nerve telling me that I have blood on my hands and making snarky comments about the mall (where I don't even shop).

So quit with your straw men and tell my why it's OK to withhold medication from a dying person.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Damn.

Here I was hoping they'd run her down the street in a stockade so we could pelt her with tomatoes and sharp rocks.

Justice denied!

[11 Bravo]

14. Cheer up, Dude.

Eventually someone else will help to stab a pregnant woman to death while telling her "I have no sympathy for you, Bitch." Then you can chime in again.

[Mike Daniels]

74. whatever

Her family can come visit her in her jail-based hospital bed to say good-bye.

That's infinitely more than any of her victims' families ever got a chance to do with their loved ones.

I save my compassion and tears for those that deserve it. Atkins has done nothing to warrant either.

[samsingh]

97. exactly

[applegrove]

17. Good.

[closeupready]

18. That's the right decision.

not wasting anymore energy now on a life self-wasted.

[SidneyCarton]

19. She is reaping what she sowed.

I do not envy her, death from infirmity is terribly awful. She however will have time to prepare, time that Sharon Tate did not have.

[Vidar]

21. Good.

[tburnsten]

22. She will remain where she belongs.

Good. SHe's a horrific person and I can't imagine what kind of thought process she must have to have stabbed a pregnant woman and tasted her blood, then written things on the door.

She is a monster and deserves far worse than the forty years of easy life in prison shes gotten.

[Sheets of Easter]

23. I am very much a compassionate person,

but her sentence was life for multiple murder, and it was a just sentence. It's not revenge, nor is it bloodlust, to try, convict, and incarcerate someone for murder (or several). I hope she finds peace in her final days.

[samsingh]

98. its justice. she deserves to die.

[lapislzi]

103. Agreed.

It is difficult to find compassion for someone who has done such horrible things. Still, we must try.

[madmusic]

24. Not the Usual Suspects: The Politics of the Prison Boom

by Marie Gottschalk

Throughout American history, politicians and public officials have exploited public anxieties about crime and disorder for political gain. The difference today is that these political strategies and public anxieties have come together in the perfect storm. They have radically transformed U.S. penal policies, spurring an unprecedented prison boom. Since the early 1970s, the U.S. prisoner population has increased by more than fivefold. Today the United States is the world’s warden, incarcerating a higher proportion of its people than any other country.

How did this happen? Why didn’t politicians from Republican Barry Goldwater to Democrat Bill Clinton face more public opposition to the proliferation of harsh talk and harsh penalties, like mandatory minimums, three-strikes laws, life sentences, and capital punishment? After all, public opinion polls show that Americans’ views of crime and punishment are not uniformly harsh. Indeed, it wasn’t until the early 1990s--two decades into the prison boom and just as the crime rate was plummeting--that the public identified crime as a leading national problem.

Liberal disillusionment with rehabilitation beginning in the 1970s together with attacks from the right and left on sen-tencing policy (notably indeterminate sentences) certainly provided major openings for penal policy to shift radically in the United States. The profitable prison-industrial complex and conservative groups, like the National Rifle Association, were also key players in promoting hard-line policies. But the picture is more complex than that.

Other groups, some of which are not the usual suspects, helped facilitate, often unwittingly, a more punitive environ-ment. Four movements in particular mediated the construction of the carceral state in important ways: the victims’ rights movement, the women’s movement, the prisoners’ rights movement, and opponents of capital punishment. The distinctive origins and development of these movements help explain why such a massive carceral state took root in the United States but not in other industrialized countries facing similar crime patterns and similar temptations to exploit law-and-order issues.

more: http://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=19889

[SteveM]

44. You forgot the biggest factor: The W.O.D.

Do you have any cites showing how the NRA was a part of the prison/industrial complex?

[michreject]

50. The NRA did take a hard line on crimes commited with guns

but not on crimes in general. Their concern was gun crimes.

[ieoeja]

71. The NRA claims responsibility for invention of the Three Strikes law. And gave away the real ...

... intent in California when they sued the state for not enforcing the law against a first time offender.

Everyone hearing of the law makes the false assumption it applies to a person arrested again after having served and been released on two previous occasions. But that is not how the NRA wrote the law -- and, yes, the NRA wrote the law that was introduced by a GOP legislator. The law simply requires mandatory life without parole for someone convicted of three or more violent crimes.

The prisoner they sued over committed a single armed robbery. During this single incident, he violated three or more separate crimes qualifying him for the 3-Strikes sentence. You point a gun at someone (armed assault), take his money (armed robbery) and tie him up (unlawful restraint) while making your escape. One incident can easily add up multiple crimes.

So the 3-Strikes law becomes a 1-Strike law. I quit the NRA over this and the Oklahoma City bombing.

[SteveM]

76. Thanks for the info. I've never been a member of the NRA, btw (nt)

[michreject]

79. First off, the NRA isn't a legislative body

They don't write laws.

Secondly. The guy committed armed robbery. He deserves to spend the reast of his natural life behind bars. He pulled a gun on another person with malice intent. Are you implying that this guy got a raw deal?

Third. It pains me to have to defend the NRA.

[ieoeja]

85. You don't have to be a legislator to write a law.

You have to be to propose the law in the legislature. Non-legislative bodies write proposed laws all the time then give those laws to elected representatives asking them to pass them into law.

In the case of California's 3-Strike law, the NRA wrote the legisltation. Or at least they claim they wrote it. I see no reason to question them.

No, I am not implying that this guy got a raw deal. I am stating it plainly. Life in prison for a one time armed robber is fucking insane. Even most rabid rightwingers would disagree with such a draconian law. Which is why the law had to be passed in such a stealth fashion. In fact, the law was rewritten following the lawsuit once the truth about it came out.

Your agreeing that a first time armed robbery should receive life without parole puts you well to the Right of even the average Rightist whackjob.

[michreject]

86. I wonder if his victim

wants him on the loose. I doubt it. They're traumatized for life.

[samsingh]

99. good for you.

[aikoaiko]

25. Life in prison. If anyone wants to convince a pro-DP that life in prison means life, then you ...

...to support keeping her in prison.

Supporting her early release just proves to me that the anti-death penalty folks really don't mean what they say (at least some of them).

[bean fidhleir]

26. I'm sure it's all about the victims having been wealthy White celebrities

Had the victims been "little" people, she'd be out.

[DangerDave921]

28. Notoriety

That's the reason. It was front-page news across the country for years. Which, in turn, was probably because it happened in California in a rich, secluded enclave to rich white people. That was part of why it was so shocking.

But I don't buy your assertion that she'd be out if it was little people. We're still talking about multiple murders, horrific murders, and stabbing a pregnant woman to death.

[bean fidhleir]

46. "We're still talking about multiple murders, horrific murders, and stabbing a pregnant woman"

Sure, but if it had been, say, poor Black people -do you really think it would have got all the play?

[SidneyCarton]

54. Maybe not, but it should have.

Lets not let our prejudices against the victims lessen the magnitude of the crime. I don't care if the victims were rich RW fundies. Cold blooded murder and mutilation is inexcusable, regardless of the perpetrator. Atkins will die in a manner far different than her victims, she will not die in terror, horribly alone in the presence of her merciless murderers. She will have time to prepare herself, time she did not allow her victims.

[DangerDave921]

55. Did you not read my post?

I said it got all that notoriety because it was done in a rich white enclave to rich white people. Please read before commenting.

But it does not follow that she would be out now if her victims had been little people.

[bean fidhleir]

56. Yes, I did read it. I'm disagreeing with the second part, where you contradict yourself

[michreject]

51. Do yoyu really believe that every killer in prison

killed someone famous and not a "Little people"?

How come I didn't read about all those famous people getting killed?

[bean fidhleir]

57. Even killers are let go after a time. It's one of the things often complained-about, that

a "life sentence" hardly ever lasts that long.

It's the same thing with death sentences. Those sentenced to death are disproportionately poor, which because of how our econ system has been made to work means they're disproportionately Black.

We have a highly classist society. Nobody will admit to it, but it affects everything that goes on.

[michreject]

61. Regardless of their economic status

Are you saying that those guilty of 1st degree murder shouldn't be put to death because they're poor?

[bean fidhleir]

62. Could you perhaps say that in a different way? I didn't understand you. (nt)

[michreject]

68. How's this

Are you saying that the poor who commit 1st degree murder shouldn't be put to death because they're poor?

[bean fidhleir]

70. I'm saying that the poor should receive the same or better treatment under law

as the rich. That's because the system eliminates many options for the poor. That's why almost no weapons violence is committed by the wealthy - they don't need to resort to weapons because they have other options for settling disputes and getting what they need.

A full array of social options shouldn't be a commodity available only to the monied.

[michreject]

78. Well, what's it gonna be

Over here you complain about being separated by class.

We have a highly classist society. Nobody will admit to it, but it affects everything that goes on.

And here you want to create division by class.

I'm saying that the poor should receive the same or better treatment under law

It's all bullshit. No one should receive better treatment than another. That includes both the wealthy and needy.

[bean fidhleir]

83. Fine. Either compensate for the advantages of the rich - or get rid of all disparities

I'm good with getting rid of all disparities, myself.

[LSK]

113. I dont recall Gacy or Dalhmer getting parole

[alcibiades_mystery]

118. Gacy was sentenced to death, and was executed

Dahmer was killed in prison after only a few years, and wasn't eligible anyway.

[LSK]

120. Atkins was originally sentenced to death

But California got rid of the death penalty so its now life.

[alcibiades_mystery]

126. Atkins was sentenced to death, then the California Supreme Court

invalidated the death sentences (pre-1972), and California was forced to commute all those sentences to life. There was no "life without parole" statute in the state of California pre-1972, so all inmates with commuted sentences became eligible for parole on the same basis as prisoners sentenced to life.

[Hekate]

134. Were you alive and reading the newspapers at the time? or is this just ancient history to you?

The Manson Family was a truly horrific gang of cult-like murderers. There's reason to believe that they killed and disposed of others on the land where they lived, before carrying out the Tate-LaBianca murders for which they were caught and tried. There are a number of suspicious disappearances connected to them -- hobos, drifters, hippie kids -- unimportant people, as you might put it. It's just that the bodies have never been found.

No, the Mansons who are in prison belong there forever. Atkins, like Manson himself, has never shown remorse, empathy, or insight. If she were released now it would mean going from the prison hospital to another hospital until she dies. Let her die where she is. She's not being abused.

Hekate

[bunnies]

27. Fabulous. The tax payers can continue to support her

despite the fact that she is no threat.

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. I'm okay with that.

[JuniperLea]

31. Money very well spent, imho... eom

[geomon666]

37. Not for much longer. n/t

[slackmaster]

40. Out of prison she'd qualify for state-provided medical care, general relief, etc.

It doesn't make much difference either way.

[bunnies]

42. yeah. good point.

Oh the irony in all that. She gets food shelter and health care no matter what. The law abiding people? Not so much. Something is seriously wrong with that.

[depakid]

30. I wonder how much that cost California?

One thing about Americans- when push comes to shove, they'll cut schools, close libraries and parks- but never get in their way of exactly the very last pound of flesh.

Part and parcel to why the nation's in the sorry shape its in.

[closeupready]

33. As to the CA taxpayer canard, if she gets out, writes a book, and makes millions because she

has a story to tell and (importantly) apparently has no remorse over what she did, there is no way her release could be viewed as anything but a travesty of justice. Further, look at these blind, wheelchair-bound sheiks who unhatch terrorist plots, and inspire (with their words) young men to go out and kill people? I'm sorry, but if she's not remorseful and doesn't understand the gravity of what she's done, then she IS a threat.

Omar Abdel-Rahman:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Abdel-Rahman

[depakid]

45. Sorry California has a law preventing that

You'll need to find another rationalization for your costly pound of flesh.

[Morning Dew]

106. Susan's Remorse

Sadie's been a Christian and remorseful for 30+ years now.

[closeupready]

110. You don't know she's been remorseful - you're just making that up.

and further, if calling oneself a "Christian" were all one needed to redeem one's self and be released, every criminal in existence would do so. Calls to mind that expression about "the Constitution the last refuge of scoundrels."

[Morning Dew]

133. She became a Christian in '74

In her book, she says that she deserves her conviction and her sentence.

Still, who can know what's in her heart?

[LSK]

111. I think she already wrote a book while in prison

[Iggo]

34. She got life, and she'll do life.

I've got no problem with that.

But I wouldn't have had a problem if they'd let her out to die, either.

[underseasurveyor]

35. Seems to me the best way to teach mercy

is to show what mercy is.
No doubt what susan did was horrible beyond words. But allowing her a tiny taste of what she has missed for the greatest portion of her life would IMHO or could be a great final lesson at the end of her life in what it means to have compassion and to show mercy. Not that I wish negative energies but by giving her a lesson in 'regret of what she's missed' for so many decades due to her choices could be more powerful than any iron bars.

I am not saddened by the fact she will not be released.. but that in a lesson now lost to her she will never know what true mercy feels like... not in this life anyway.

It's too bad that the lack of compassion and mercy on this board is seriously lacking, and no, I am not shocked by any means. Here's to NothingShocksMeAnymore..:hug: I miss her so!

[Mz Pip]

39. She received mercy

when she got life. Mostly she lucked out in not getting the death penalty.

If she were let out it would only reinforce those who demand the death penalty. They could point to the Atkins and say that even life in prison doesn't mean life in prison, therefore we'd better double down on death penalties.

Life has to mean life.

[underseasurveyor]

43. I think death is the easy way out

But yea I do get your point in that it would only strengthen the argument FOR the death penalty of which I am totally against.

[alcibiades_mystery]

121. Mercy is voluntary by definition...the commutation of her sentence was a legal mandate

It was part of the California Supreme Court's overturning of the death penalty.

Life does not mean life in most cases, and it shouldn't. Eligibility for parole is part of the sentencing except where it is explicitly denied in advance. If that's the case, then the question is whether the parole criteria are applied evenly.

By the way, I'm against the death penalty AND life without parole sentences. Both are barbaric, in my opinion.

[closeupready]

41. Since I presume none of us here know firsthand, let's assume that she is not remorseful.

For the sake of argument, let's say she continues to feel Sharon Tate got what she deserved.

Should such a person be granted compassionate release?

[depakid]

48. You're letting your reasoning get hijacked by language

"Compassionate" has little to do with anything, here. The woman would simply be in a hospice- just not at taxpayer expense.

[pipoman]

137. Wrong

just not at taxpayer expense.

What is she going to do? Get out and get a job with benefits? Win the lottery? Marry a wealthy man? No, she will still be on the public dole.Tax payers will pay her every bill until the day she dies regardless if she is in prison or released.

[SidneyCarton]

52. I am willing to extend to her the charity of assuming that she feels remorse.

She has had a long time to think about her actions. Remorse alone does not excuse crime, she has to live with a reminder of what she did everyday, so do the Tate and LaBianca loved ones. I hope that she doesn't pass into the night like her victims, terrified and in awful pain, but her punishment was life in prison, and so it should remain.

[underseasurveyor]

53. She is hardly a threat

and OK I'll play.. let's ass-u-me she is not remorseful. First, you or I can't do anything about how SHE feels, and if she's not remorseful by now she never will be and second, how does one learn what mercy feels like, and to know what mercy is, except by experiencing it?

[ZinZen]

65. I have followed this case closely since the 70's

Atkins has never been remorseful, she has always played games about being remorseful in order to get out. She deserves to die in prison. Krenwinkel actually has shown the most self reflection and remorse about the crimes but I thinks she too deserves to die in prison. Those crime were heinous.

[ronnykmarshall]

117. Krenwinkle is the only one ..

that has said "This (prison) is where I belong for what I did."

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. That's sort of stacking the deck in advance

But I guess I see the Socratic nature of the question.

My position is this: She should get compassionate release if she meets all the standing and generally applied criteria for compassionate release. Since one of those would have to be acknowledgment and manifest remorse for the criminal act (a condition of all parole), your question is basically moot.

It does, however, put those arguing that her physical condition itself is grounds for release. But they're wrong: her physical condition is a necessary but insufficient condition for compassionate release. All the other factors have to be weighed as well.

The problem with Atkins' case is that the factors seem to be in her favor, if she was being treated like other prisoners in her category. But she is not and will not be treated that way, largely because her crimes were a famous media spectacle that have since taken on the status of a cultural mythology. So, she will receive special treatment, rather than general treatment, based largely on the accident of media coverage, which is outside the criteria. Now, that's either good or bad depending on your take, but that appears to be what's happened. Susan Atkins (and her cohort of Krenwinkle and Van Houten) has spent more time in prison than any living woman in the California Department of Corrections. Do you think that her crime was objectively "more horrible" than any other murder(s) a woman was convicted of in 1969-1970? If so, why?

[tburnsten]

66. Who cares about teaching her anything?

She is a monster, she brutally murdered a pregnant woman along with others (and who knows how many the manson clan murdered that got chalked up to other causes) and she is at the end of her life. That isn't abstract, that is real, and so was the woman she killed. She has no remorse, never has had any, and is undeserving of even the slightest bit of compassion. She is lucky she is in the U.S., where our prison system is incredibly soft on the convicts. Why would you think that destruction of justice is worth it to 'teach her compassion'? She is a waste of life and deserves every last second of prison time.

[closeupready]

69. "Waste of life" - sums her up perfectly.

I agree.

[NoGOPZone]

36. That is only the DA's recommendation. The parole board gets to decide

and then it goes to the sentencing court for final review.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_re_us/manson_follower

[FredScuttle]

47. Good.....justice is served

n/t

[autorank]

58. Does this mean she won't be meeting me at Starbucks? n/t

[liberalitch]

59. As long as Sharon Tate is still dead,.... she should still be in prison.

I don't think Mrs. Polanski's status is going to change anytime soon.

[LeftinOH]

63. This person never hurt anyone, and spent the last minutes of her life pleading

for the life of her baby..who would have been born just a few weeks later.


This image was taken on the same day she was murdered:

[ronnykmarshall]

122. She was so beautiful.

This is one of my favorite pictures of her.

[DailyGrind51]

64. Damn, I thought we coudl get her a job...

in the White House!;-)

[tammywammy]

67. As she should

[dorkulon]

72. "Woman, I have no mercy for you."

That's what she told Sharon Tate as she begged for her life and the life of her unborn child. Karma's a bitch.

[LSK]

112. exactly, I was going to post the same thing

[varkam]

73. Looks like it's not a done deal.

That link just talks about how the DA was recommending that she remain incarcerated, but the final word will come from the parole board that meets next week - at least according to the article.

As for whether or not she should get out - I guess I'm agnostic. People can change and whatnot, but I'm not sure that either myself nor anyone here is qualified to comment on whether or nor that she has.

[Crabby Appleton]

88. no - release was denied by parole board

The 12-member California Board of Parole voted unanimously to deny Atkins' request for a court hearing that could have released her to die outside prison. Tellingly, opponents of Atkins' release spoke for only about 20 minutes. But that seemed long enough.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-atkins16-2008jul16,0,6560440.story

[varkam]

90. Ah. Sorry, the link in the OP didn't mention that.

Thanks :hi:

[tburnsten]

92. How much time should they have spoken for?

I could make a case against her release in less than five minutes. What did you want them to say? How much of the parole board's time should she have wasted? Every second she uses in front of the parole board is time taken from other prisoners waiting to go before the board, people who might actually have some saving grace besides the fact they are sick.

[cobalt1999]

89. Here is why release shouldn't even be an option...

"In opposing Atkins' release, some family members had to bring back painful memories.

Pam Turner, a cousin of Sharon Tate, recalled the pregnant actress' return to the United States, and dreaming of helping her with her baby.

Then she spoke about wanting to die after finding out that Tate and her unborn son had been stabbed to death.

"I was a child, but I was so sick with grief that I wished I too could die," Turner said, sobbing. She described how Tate's mother, her aunt, "howled like a wounded animal.""

A

nything that makes the victim or victim's family suffer more should not be allowed to happen.

[cliffordu]

101. I guess butchering Sharon Tate wasn't such a great idea after all......

Tough shit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

130. Would she if she hadn't attracted so much media attention?

I don't think that it's necessarily the wrong decision to keep her in prison, but I do think it's definately wrong to place that decision in the hands of an elected official.

All those responsible for enforcing as opposed to making the law - judges, DAs, etc - should be appointed, not elected, and should be answerable to the electorate only via the law and one another, not directly.

[UTUSN]

132. It would be karmically ironic if she reached the point of begging for DEATH. n/t

[pipoman]

138. I find it an interesting paradox that in this thread

many of those who believe mercy should be shown this heinous creature are the same who regularly advocate not allowing would be crime victims the use of the most effective defensive tools to protect themselves and their family from animals like this.